Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 481

control, N = 241

treatment, N = 241

p-value2

age

48

51.05 ± 12.71 (25 - 74)

50.67 ± 13.25 (25 - 74)

51.44 ± 12.43 (32 - 72)

0.837

gender

48

0.365

f

31 (65%)

14 (58%)

17 (71%)

m

17 (35%)

10 (42%)

7 (29%)

occupation

48

0.971

day_training

1 (2.1%)

1 (4.2%)

0 (0%)

full_time

5 (10%)

3 (12%)

2 (8.3%)

homemaker

4 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

other

2 (4.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (8.3%)

part_time

9 (19%)

5 (21%)

4 (17%)

retired

13 (27%)

6 (25%)

7 (29%)

self_employ

2 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

t_and_e

2 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

unemploy

10 (21%)

5 (21%)

5 (21%)

marital

48

0.891

divore

5 (10%)

3 (12%)

2 (8.3%)

married

10 (21%)

4 (17%)

6 (25%)

none

27 (56%)

14 (58%)

13 (54%)

seperation

3 (6.2%)

2 (8.3%)

1 (4.2%)

widow

3 (6.2%)

1 (4.2%)

2 (8.3%)

edu

48

0.846

bachelor

14 (29%)

6 (25%)

8 (33%)

diploma

7 (15%)

5 (21%)

2 (8.3%)

hd_ad

2 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

postgraduate

4 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

primary

4 (8.3%)

1 (4.2%)

3 (12%)

secondary_1_3

4 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

2 (8.3%)

secondary_4_5

12 (25%)

7 (29%)

5 (21%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.1%)

0 (0%)

1 (4.2%)

fam_income

48

0.724

10001_12000

3 (6.2%)

1 (4.2%)

2 (8.3%)

12001_14000

2 (4.2%)

2 (8.3%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

5 (10%)

2 (8.3%)

3 (12%)

16001_18000

2 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

1 (4.2%)

18001_20000

2 (4.2%)

2 (8.3%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (19%)

6 (25%)

3 (12%)

2001_4000

5 (10%)

2 (8.3%)

3 (12%)

4001_6000

7 (15%)

3 (12%)

4 (17%)

6001_8000

5 (10%)

3 (12%)

2 (8.3%)

8001_10000

4 (8.3%)

1 (4.2%)

3 (12%)

below_2000

4 (8.3%)

1 (4.2%)

3 (12%)

medication

48

40 (83%)

20 (83%)

20 (83%)

>0.999

onset_duration

48

15.71 ± 12.41 (0 - 56)

17.12 ± 14.01 (1 - 56)

14.29 ± 10.70 (0 - 35)

0.437

onset_age

48

35.35 ± 12.60 (15 - 62)

33.55 ± 11.34 (16 - 55)

37.14 ± 13.76 (15 - 62)

0.329

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 481

control, N = 241

treatment, N = 241

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

48

3.33 ± 1.28 (1 - 5)

3.25 ± 1.36 (1 - 5)

3.42 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

0.656

recovery_stage_b

48

18.25 ± 2.69 (9 - 23)

18.33 ± 2.90 (9 - 23)

18.17 ± 2.53 (14 - 23)

0.833

ras_confidence

48

30.69 ± 4.60 (19 - 40)

30.25 ± 4.42 (19 - 40)

31.12 ± 4.84 (22 - 39)

0.516

ras_willingness

48

12.29 ± 1.97 (7 - 15)

12.33 ± 1.74 (9 - 15)

12.25 ± 2.21 (7 - 15)

0.885

ras_goal

48

17.67 ± 2.92 (12 - 24)

17.58 ± 2.90 (12 - 23)

17.75 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

0.846

ras_reliance

48

13.48 ± 3.01 (8 - 20)

13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 18)

13.58 ± 3.34 (8 - 20)

0.813

ras_domination

48

10.17 ± 2.35 (3 - 15)

10.88 ± 1.73 (8 - 15)

9.46 ± 2.69 (3 - 14)

0.035

symptom

48

29.58 ± 9.87 (14 - 56)

28.50 ± 8.29 (14 - 45)

30.67 ± 11.30 (15 - 56)

0.453

slof_work

48

22.69 ± 4.87 (10 - 30)

23.12 ± 4.61 (15 - 30)

22.25 ± 5.19 (10 - 30)

0.540

slof_relationship

48

25.94 ± 5.86 (11 - 35)

26.25 ± 6.20 (13 - 35)

25.62 ± 5.62 (11 - 35)

0.716

satisfaction

48

20.77 ± 6.72 (5 - 30)

19.54 ± 6.45 (5 - 29)

22.00 ± 6.90 (5 - 30)

0.209

mhc_emotional

48

11.44 ± 3.54 (4 - 18)

11.12 ± 3.05 (6 - 17)

11.75 ± 4.00 (4 - 18)

0.546

mhc_social

48

14.83 ± 5.02 (6 - 26)

15.21 ± 5.12 (7 - 26)

14.46 ± 5.00 (6 - 23)

0.610

mhc_psychological

48

22.15 ± 6.11 (6 - 36)

21.67 ± 6.11 (10 - 33)

22.62 ± 6.21 (6 - 36)

0.592

resilisnce

48

16.83 ± 4.74 (6 - 25)

16.58 ± 4.74 (6 - 24)

17.08 ± 4.82 (7 - 25)

0.719

social_provision

48

13.67 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

13.58 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

13.75 ± 3.57 (5 - 19)

0.858

els_value_living

48

17.04 ± 2.98 (5 - 23)

16.67 ± 2.30 (12 - 20)

17.42 ± 3.55 (5 - 23)

0.389

els_life_fulfill

48

13.04 ± 3.29 (4 - 18)

12.21 ± 3.28 (5 - 17)

13.88 ± 3.14 (4 - 18)

0.079

els

48

30.08 ± 5.66 (9 - 40)

28.88 ± 4.79 (20 - 36)

31.29 ± 6.29 (9 - 40)

0.141

social_connect

48

27.06 ± 9.79 (8 - 48)

26.96 ± 8.78 (8 - 45)

27.17 ± 10.90 (8 - 48)

0.942

shs_agency

48

14.04 ± 4.82 (3 - 20)

13.46 ± 4.55 (3 - 20)

14.62 ± 5.11 (3 - 20)

0.408

shs_pathway

48

16.50 ± 3.88 (4 - 22)

15.96 ± 3.72 (8 - 22)

17.04 ± 4.03 (4 - 22)

0.338

shs

48

30.54 ± 8.10 (7 - 42)

29.42 ± 7.88 (14 - 41)

31.67 ± 8.33 (7 - 42)

0.341

esteem

48

12.50 ± 1.27 (10 - 15)

12.58 ± 1.18 (10 - 14)

12.42 ± 1.38 (10 - 15)

0.655

mlq_search

48

15.08 ± 3.30 (3 - 21)

15.00 ± 3.26 (6 - 21)

15.17 ± 3.41 (3 - 20)

0.863

mlq_presence

48

13.62 ± 3.90 (3 - 21)

13.92 ± 2.98 (6 - 19)

13.33 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)

0.609

mlq

48

28.71 ± 6.57 (6 - 41)

28.92 ± 6.04 (12 - 40)

28.50 ± 7.17 (6 - 41)

0.829

empower

48

19.88 ± 4.34 (6 - 28)

19.75 ± 3.95 (11 - 24)

20.00 ± 4.79 (6 - 28)

0.844

ismi_resistance

48

14.83 ± 2.76 (5 - 20)

14.92 ± 2.30 (12 - 19)

14.75 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.837

ismi_discrimation

48

11.17 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)

11.96 ± 2.84 (5 - 17)

10.38 ± 3.27 (5 - 19)

0.080

sss_affective

48

9.62 ± 4.10 (3 - 18)

10.04 ± 3.30 (3 - 15)

9.21 ± 4.80 (3 - 18)

0.487

sss_behavior

48

9.44 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

9.96 ± 4.05 (3 - 18)

8.92 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)

0.401

sss_cognitive

48

7.98 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

7.79 ± 3.74 (3 - 15)

8.17 ± 4.30 (3 - 18)

0.749

sss

48

27.04 ± 11.38 (9 - 54)

27.79 ± 9.57 (9 - 44)

26.29 ± 13.11 (9 - 54)

0.653

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.25

0.251

2.76, 3.74

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.167

0.354

-0.528, 0.861

0.640

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.793

0.473

-0.135, 1.72

0.108

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.542

0.725

-1.96, 0.879

0.463

Pseudo R square

0.040

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.3

0.549

17.3, 19.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.167

0.777

-1.69, 1.36

0.831

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.130

0.589

-1.28, 1.03

0.830

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.679

0.911

-1.11, 2.46

0.472

Pseudo R square

0.003

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.3

0.931

28.4, 32.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.875

1.317

-1.71, 3.46

0.510

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.607

0.688

-0.741, 1.96

0.396

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.048

1.065

-2.04, 2.14

0.965

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.3

0.400

11.5, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.083

0.566

-1.19, 1.03

0.884

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.429

0.519

-1.45, 0.588

0.422

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.487

0.801

-1.08, 2.06

0.553

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.603

16.4, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.167

0.853

-1.50, 1.84

0.846

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.130

0.657

-1.16, 1.42

0.846

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.921

1.015

-2.91, 1.07

0.382

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.4

0.615

12.2, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.208

0.870

-1.50, 1.91

0.812

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.128

0.406

-0.668, 0.923

0.759

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.538

0.628

-0.693, 1.77

0.410

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.9

0.464

9.97, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.42

0.656

-2.70, -0.131

0.035

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.07

0.823

-2.68, 0.542

0.206

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.53

1.263

-0.947, 4.00

0.238

Pseudo R square

0.076

symptom

(Intercept)

28.5

2.050

24.5, 32.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.17

2.899

-3.52, 7.85

0.459

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.13

1.772

-4.60, 2.35

0.537

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.95

2.741

-3.43, 7.32

0.492

Pseudo R square

0.018

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.1

1.002

21.2, 25.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.875

1.417

-3.65, 1.90

0.540

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.83

0.578

-2.96, -0.697

0.009

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.887

0.895

-0.867, 2.64

0.344

Pseudo R square

0.019

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

26.2

1.215

23.9, 28.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.625

1.718

-3.99, 2.74

0.718

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.45

1.047

-3.50, 0.603

0.193

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.87

1.620

-1.31, 5.04

0.272

Pseudo R square

0.006

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.5

1.339

16.9, 22.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.46

1.893

-1.25, 6.17

0.200

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.80

1.418

0.017, 5.58

0.073

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.170

2.192

-4.47, 4.13

0.939

Pseudo R square

0.055

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.1

0.719

9.72, 12.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.625

1.017

-1.37, 2.62

0.542

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.10

1.032

-0.918, 3.13

0.303

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.47

1.591

-4.59, 1.65

0.370

Pseudo R square

0.012

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

1.096

13.1, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.750

1.551

-3.79, 2.29

0.631

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.40

1.626

-0.783, 5.59

0.156

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.84

2.506

-8.75, 1.07

0.143

Pseudo R square

0.042

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.7

1.272

19.2, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.958

1.798

-2.57, 4.48

0.596

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.86

1.879

-1.82, 5.55

0.335

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.17

2.896

-8.84, 2.51

0.289

Pseudo R square

0.012

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.6

0.935

14.8, 18.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.500

1.322

-2.09, 3.09

0.707

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.17

1.418

-1.61, 3.95

0.423

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.414

2.185

-4.70, 3.87

0.852

Pseudo R square

0.009

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.6

0.644

12.3, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.167

0.910

-1.62, 1.95

0.855

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.381

0.751

-1.85, 1.09

0.621

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.75

1.161

-0.527, 4.02

0.156

Pseudo R square

0.020

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.591

15.5, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.750

0.835

-0.887, 2.39

0.373

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.42

0.772

-0.096, 2.93

0.085

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.21

1.192

-3.55, 1.13

0.325

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.631

11.0, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.67

0.893

-0.083, 3.42

0.068

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.48

0.748

0.012, 2.94

0.070

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.14

1.155

-3.40, 1.13

0.342

Pseudo R square

0.068

els

(Intercept)

28.9

1.099

26.7, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.42

1.554

-0.629, 5.46

0.126

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.93

1.382

0.222, 5.64

0.051

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.36

2.134

-6.54, 1.82

0.286

Pseudo R square

0.055

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.0

1.987

23.1, 30.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.208

2.810

-5.30, 5.72

0.941

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.63

1.696

-1.70, 4.95

0.358

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.54

2.623

-3.61, 6.68

0.570

Pseudo R square

0.010

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.5

0.969

11.6, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.17

1.370

-1.52, 3.85

0.399

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.54

1.073

-0.560, 3.64

0.178

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.06

1.658

-4.31, 2.19

0.534

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.750

14.5, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.08

1.061

-0.995, 3.16

0.312

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.01

0.970

-0.894, 2.91

0.318

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.071

1.497

-3.01, 2.86

0.963

Pseudo R square

0.030

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

1.595

26.3, 32.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.25

2.256

-2.17, 6.67

0.324

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.50

1.840

-1.10, 6.11

0.199

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.08

2.842

-6.65, 4.49

0.710

Pseudo R square

0.026

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.255

12.1, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.167

0.360

-0.873, 0.540

0.646

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.947

0.481

0.004, 1.89

0.075

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.970

0.737

-2.41, 0.474

0.213

Pseudo R square

0.071

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.0

0.688

13.7, 16.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.167

0.972

-1.74, 2.07

0.865

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.833

1.265

-1.65, 3.31

0.516

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.25

1.940

-6.05, 1.55

0.256

Pseudo R square

0.019

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.9

0.784

12.4, 15.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.583

1.108

-2.76, 1.59

0.601

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.15

1.183

-1.17, 3.47

0.345

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.39

1.823

-4.96, 2.18

0.457

Pseudo R square

0.022

mlq

(Intercept)

28.9

1.352

26.3, 31.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.417

1.912

-4.16, 3.33

0.828

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.03

2.265

-2.41, 6.47

0.380

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.68

3.482

-10.5, 3.15

0.303

Pseudo R square

0.020

empower

(Intercept)

19.8

0.866

18.1, 21.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.250

1.225

-2.15, 2.65

0.839

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.598

0.824

-1.02, 2.21

0.483

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.593

1.275

-3.09, 1.91

0.651

Pseudo R square

0.002

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.9

0.539

13.9, 16.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.167

0.762

-1.66, 1.33

0.828

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.106

0.852

-1.78, 1.56

0.902

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.613

1.311

-1.96, 3.18

0.645

Pseudo R square

0.003

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.614

10.8, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.58

0.868

-3.28, 0.117

0.074

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.846

0.787

-2.39, 0.697

0.299

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.306

1.215

-2.08, 2.69

0.805

Pseudo R square

0.067

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.0

0.820

8.43, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.833

1.160

-3.11, 1.44

0.476

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.319

0.666

-1.62, 0.986

0.641

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.721

1.030

-2.74, 1.30

0.499

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.96

0.848

8.30, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.04

1.199

-3.39, 1.31

0.389

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.26

0.944

-3.11, 0.593

0.207

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.724

1.459

-2.14, 3.58

0.629

Pseudo R square

0.020

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.79

0.830

6.17, 9.42

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.375

1.173

-1.92, 2.67

0.751

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.19

0.807

-0.389, 2.77

0.166

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.30

1.247

-4.75, 0.142

0.090

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss

(Intercept)

27.8

2.306

23.3, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.50

3.262

-7.89, 4.89

0.648

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.507

1.880

-4.19, 3.18

0.792

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.98

2.909

-7.69, 3.72

0.509

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.76, 3.74], t(54) = 12.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.86], t(54) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.72], t(54) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.88], t(54) = -0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.33 (95% CI [17.26, 19.41], t(54) = 33.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.36], t(54) = -0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.03], t(54) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.46], t(54) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.25 (95% CI [28.43, 32.07], t(54) = 32.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.71, 3.46], t(54) = 0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.96], t(54) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.14], t(54) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.55, 13.12], t(54) = 30.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.03], t(54) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.59], t(54) = -0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.06], t(54) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.58 (95% CI [16.40, 18.76], t(54) = 29.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.84], t(54) = 0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.42], t(54) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.91, 1.07], t(54) = -0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.37 (95% CI [12.17, 14.58], t(54) = 21.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.91], t(54) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.92], t(54) = 0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.77], t(54) = 0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.88 (95% CI [9.97, 11.78], t(54) = 23.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.70, -0.13], t(54) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.16, -0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.54], t(54) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.95, 4.00], t(54) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.50 (95% CI [24.48, 32.52], t(54) = 13.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.17, 95% CI [-3.52, 7.85], t(54) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-4.60, 2.35], t(54) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.95, 95% CI [-3.43, 7.32], t(54) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.13 (95% CI [21.16, 25.09], t(54) = 23.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.65, 1.90], t(54) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.83, 95% CI [-2.96, -0.70], t(54) = -3.17, p = 0.002; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.64], t(54) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.25 (95% CI [23.87, 28.63], t(54) = 21.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-3.99, 2.74], t(54) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.50, 0.60], t(54) = -1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.87, 95% CI [-1.31, 5.04], t(54) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [16.92, 22.17], t(54) = 14.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-1.25, 6.17], t(54) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.92])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [0.02, 5.58], t(54) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [2.47e-03, 0.83])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-4.47, 4.13], t(54) = -0.08, p = 0.938; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.13 (95% CI [9.72, 12.53], t(54) = 15.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.62], t(54) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.92, 3.13], t(54) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.90])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-4.59, 1.65], t(54) = -0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.21 (95% CI [13.06, 17.36], t(54) = 13.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.79, 2.29], t(54) = -0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.40, 95% CI [-0.78, 5.59], t(54) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.00])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.84, 95% CI [-8.75, 1.07], t(54) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.67 (95% CI [19.17, 24.16], t(54) = 17.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-2.57, 4.48], t(54) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.86, 95% CI [-1.82, 5.55], t(54) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.88])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.17, 95% CI [-8.84, 2.51], t(54) = -1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [14.75, 18.42], t(54) = 17.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.09], t(54) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.95], t(54) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.87])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-4.70, 3.87], t(54) = -0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.85])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.58 (95% CI [12.32, 14.84], t(54) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.95], t(54) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.09], t(54) = -0.51, p = 0.613; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [-0.53, 4.02], t(54) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.51, 17.82], t(54) = 28.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.39], t(54) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.93], t(54) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.98])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-3.55, 1.13], t(54) = -1.01, p = 0.310; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.21 (95% CI [10.97, 13.45], t(54) = 19.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.42], t(54) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [0.01, 2.94], t(54) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [3.66e-03, 0.91])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.40, 1.13], t(54) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.87 (95% CI [26.72, 31.03], t(54) = 26.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.42, 95% CI [-0.63, 5.46], t(54) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.96])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.93, 95% CI [0.22, 5.64], t(54) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.04, 0.99])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.36, 95% CI [-6.54, 1.82], t(54) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.96 (95% CI [23.06, 30.85], t(54) = 13.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-5.30, 5.72], t(54) = 0.07, p = 0.941; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-1.70, 4.95], t(54) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-3.61, 6.68], t(54) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.46 (95% CI [11.56, 15.36], t(54) = 13.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.85], t(54) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.56, 3.64], t(54) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.77])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-4.31, 2.19], t(54) = -0.64, p = 0.522; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.49, 17.43], t(54) = 21.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.16], t(54) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.85])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.91], t(54) = 1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.78])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-3.01, 2.86], t(54) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [26.29, 32.54], t(54) = 18.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.25, 95% CI [-2.17, 6.67], t(54) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.85])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.50, 95% CI [-1.10, 6.11], t(54) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.77])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.08, 95% CI [-6.65, 4.49], t(54) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.36) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [12.08, 13.08], t(54) = 49.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.54], t(54) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [4.45e-03, 1.89], t(54) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.75, 95% CI [3.52e-03, 1.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.47], t(54) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.65, 16.35], t(54) = 21.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.74, 2.07], t(54) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.65, 3.31], t(54) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.98])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.25, 95% CI [-6.05, 1.55], t(54) = -1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.38, 15.45], t(54) = 17.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.76, 1.59], t(54) = -0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-1.17, 3.47], t(54) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.90])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-4.96, 2.18], t(54) = -0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.92 (95% CI [26.27, 31.57], t(54) = 21.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-4.16, 3.33], t(54) = -0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [-2.41, 6.47], t(54) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.96])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.68, 95% CI [-10.50, 3.15], t(54) = -1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.75 (95% CI [18.05, 21.45], t(54) = 22.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.65], t(54) = 0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.21], t(54) = 0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-3.09, 1.91], t(54) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.92 (95% CI [13.86, 15.97], t(54) = 27.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.33], t(54) = -0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.56], t(54) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.18], t(54) = 0.47, p = 0.640; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [10.76, 13.16], t(54) = 19.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.58, 95% CI [-3.28, 0.12], t(54) = -1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.39, 0.70], t(54) = -1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.69], t(54) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.85])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.04 (95% CI [8.43, 11.65], t(54) = 12.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.11, 1.44], t(54) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.99], t(54) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.30], t(54) = -0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.96 (95% CI [8.30, 11.62], t(54) = 11.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.39, 1.31], t(54) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.59], t(54) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-2.14, 3.58], t(54) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.86])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.79 (95% CI [6.17, 9.42], t(54) = 9.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.92, 2.67], t(54) = 0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.77], t(54) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.68])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.30, 95% CI [-4.75, 0.14], t(54) = -1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.79 (95% CI [23.27, 32.31], t(54) = 12.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-7.89, 4.89], t(54) = -0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-4.19, 3.18], t(54) = -0.27, p = 0.788; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.98, 95% CI [-7.69, 3.72], t(54) = -0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

198.649

204.932

-96.324

192.649

recovery_stage_a

random

6

201.466

214.032

-94.733

189.466

3.183

3

0.364

recovery_stage_b

null

3

278.147

284.431

-136.074

272.147

recovery_stage_b

random

6

283.367

295.933

-135.683

271.367

0.781

3

0.854

ras_confidence

null

3

333.979

340.262

-163.990

327.979

ras_confidence

random

6

337.970

350.536

-162.985

325.970

2.009

3

0.571

ras_willingness

null

3

244.618

250.901

-119.309

238.618

ras_willingness

random

6

249.829

262.395

-118.915

237.829

0.788

3

0.852

ras_goal

null

3

290.161

296.444

-142.081

284.161

ras_goal

random

6

294.944

307.510

-141.472

282.944

1.217

3

0.749

ras_reliance

null

3

281.809

288.092

-137.904

275.809

ras_reliance

random

6

285.500

298.066

-136.750

273.500

2.309

3

0.511

ras_domination

null

3

273.740

280.023

-133.870

267.740

ras_domination

random

6

274.240

286.806

-131.120

262.240

5.500

3

0.139

symptom

null

3

431.724

438.007

-212.862

425.724

symptom

random

6

436.394

448.960

-212.197

424.394

1.330

3

0.722

slof_work

null

3

343.628

349.912

-168.814

337.628

slof_work

random

6

340.878

353.444

-164.439

328.878

8.750

3

0.033

slof_relationship

null

3

369.690

375.973

-181.845

363.690

slof_relationship

random

6

373.535

386.101

-180.768

361.535

2.155

3

0.541

satisfaction

null

3

391.826

398.109

-192.913

385.826

satisfaction

random

6

390.016

402.582

-189.008

378.016

7.810

3

0.050

mhc_emotional

null

3

317.927

324.210

-155.963

311.927

mhc_emotional

random

6

322.396

334.962

-155.198

310.396

1.530

3

0.675

mhc_social

null

3

371.431

377.714

-182.715

365.431

mhc_social

random

6

373.731

386.298

-180.866

361.731

3.699

3

0.296

mhc_psychological

null

3

386.958

393.241

-190.479

380.958

mhc_psychological

random

6

391.441

404.007

-189.720

379.441

1.517

3

0.678

resilisnce

null

3

350.049

356.332

-172.025

344.049

resilisnce

random

6

355.074

367.640

-171.537

343.074

0.975

3

0.807

social_provision

null

3

301.385

307.668

-147.693

295.385

social_provision

random

6

304.397

316.963

-146.199

292.397

2.988

3

0.394

els_value_living

null

3

294.672

300.955

-144.336

288.672

els_value_living

random

6

296.665

309.231

-142.333

284.665

4.007

3

0.261

els_life_fulfill

null

3

303.401

309.684

-148.701

297.401

els_life_fulfill

random

6

302.413

314.979

-145.207

290.413

6.988

3

0.072

els

null

3

370.765

377.048

-182.382

364.765

els

random

6

370.290

382.856

-179.145

358.290

6.474

3

0.091

social_connect

null

3

429.624

435.907

-211.812

423.624

social_connect

random

6

432.327

444.893

-210.163

420.327

3.298

3

0.348

shs_agency

null

3

349.147

355.430

-171.573

343.147

shs_agency

random

6

352.246

364.812

-170.123

340.246

2.901

3

0.407

shs_pathway

null

3

321.972

328.255

-157.986

315.972

shs_pathway

random

6

325.081

337.647

-156.541

313.081

2.891

3

0.409

shs

null

3

410.309

416.592

-202.155

404.309

shs

random

6

413.031

425.597

-200.516

401.031

3.278

3

0.351

esteem

null

3

202.612

208.895

-98.306

196.612

esteem

random

6

203.481

216.047

-95.740

191.481

5.131

3

0.162

mlq_search

null

3

317.617

323.900

-155.808

311.617

mlq_search

random

6

322.169

334.735

-155.085

310.169

1.447

3

0.694

mlq_presence

null

3

329.368

335.651

-161.684

323.368

mlq_presence

random

6

333.823

346.389

-160.911

321.823

1.545

3

0.672

mlq

null

3

396.958

403.241

-195.479

390.958

mlq

random

6

401.476

414.042

-194.738

389.476

1.482

3

0.686

empower

null

3

329.840

336.123

-161.920

323.840

empower

random

6

335.274

347.840

-161.637

323.274

0.565

3

0.904

ismi_resistance

null

3

284.195

290.478

-139.098

278.195

ismi_resistance

random

6

289.876

302.442

-138.938

277.876

0.319

3

0.956

ismi_discrimation

null

3

299.644

305.927

-146.822

293.644

ismi_discrimation

random

6

300.829

313.395

-144.414

288.829

4.815

3

0.186

sss_affective

null

3

321.782

328.065

-157.891

315.782

sss_affective

random

6

325.006

337.572

-156.503

313.006

2.776

3

0.427

sss_behavior

null

3

333.106

339.389

-163.553

327.106

sss_behavior

random

6

336.358

348.924

-162.179

324.358

2.749

3

0.432

sss_cognitive

null

3

328.229

334.512

-161.114

322.229

sss_cognitive

random

6

330.594

343.160

-159.297

318.594

3.635

3

0.304

sss

null

3

444.900

451.184

-219.450

438.900

sss

random

6

449.149

461.715

-218.574

437.149

1.752

3

0.626

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

24

3.25 ± 1.23

24

3.42 ± 1.23

0.640

-0.164

recovery_stage_a

2nd

7

4.04 ± 1.25

-0.779

5

3.67 ± 1.25

-0.247

0.612

0.368

recovery_stage_b

1st

24

18.33 ± 2.69

24

18.17 ± 2.69

0.831

0.146

recovery_stage_b

2nd

7

18.20 ± 1.96

0.114

5

18.72 ± 1.86

-0.482

0.649

-0.450

ras_confidence

1st

24

30.25 ± 4.56

24

31.12 ± 4.56

0.510

-0.670

ras_confidence

2nd

7

30.86 ± 2.90

-0.465

5

31.78 ± 2.64

-0.502

0.570

-0.706

ras_willingness

1st

24

12.33 ± 1.96

24

12.25 ± 1.96

0.884

0.082

ras_willingness

2nd

7

11.90 ± 1.58

0.420

5

12.31 ± 1.53

-0.057

0.659

-0.395

ras_goal

1st

24

17.58 ± 2.95

24

17.75 ± 2.95

0.846

-0.131

ras_goal

2nd

7

17.71 ± 2.17

-0.102

5

16.96 ± 2.06

0.622

0.545

0.593

ras_reliance

1st

24

13.37 ± 3.01

24

13.58 ± 3.01

0.812

-0.271

ras_reliance

2nd

7

13.50 ± 1.86

-0.166

5

14.25 ± 1.68

-0.867

0.471

-0.972

ras_domination

1st

24

10.88 ± 2.27

24

9.46 ± 2.27

0.035

0.821

ras_domination

2nd

7

9.80 ± 2.22

0.621

5

9.92 ± 2.22

-0.265

0.932

-0.065

symptom

1st

24

28.50 ± 10.04

24

30.67 ± 10.04

0.459

-0.640

symptom

2nd

7

27.37 ± 6.72

0.333

5

31.49 ± 6.21

-0.242

0.280

-1.216

slof_work

1st

24

23.13 ± 4.91

24

22.25 ± 4.91

0.540

0.802

slof_work

2nd

7

21.30 ± 2.95

1.677

5

21.31 ± 2.62

0.865

0.994

-0.011

slof_relationship

1st

24

26.25 ± 5.95

24

25.63 ± 5.95

0.718

0.313

slof_relationship

2nd

7

24.80 ± 3.98

0.725

5

26.04 ± 3.68

-0.210

0.579

-0.623

satisfaction

1st

24

19.54 ± 6.56

24

22.00 ± 6.56

0.200

-0.898

satisfaction

2nd

7

22.34 ± 4.76

-1.021

5

24.63 ± 4.50

-0.959

0.402

-0.835

mhc_emotional

1st

24

11.13 ± 3.52

24

11.75 ± 3.52

0.542

-0.304

mhc_emotional

2nd

7

12.23 ± 3.01

-0.536

5

11.38 ± 2.94

0.179

0.629

0.412

mhc_social

1st

24

15.21 ± 5.37

24

14.46 ± 5.37

0.631

0.230

mhc_social

2nd

7

17.61 ± 4.68

-0.737

5

13.02 ± 4.59

0.439

0.100

1.406

mhc_psychological

1st

24

21.67 ± 6.23

24

22.62 ± 6.23

0.596

-0.254

mhc_psychological

2nd

7

23.53 ± 5.41

-0.495

5

21.32 ± 5.31

0.346

0.487

0.586

resilisnce

1st

24

16.58 ± 4.58

24

17.08 ± 4.58

0.707

-0.175

resilisnce

2nd

7

17.75 ± 4.05

-0.410

5

17.84 ± 3.98

-0.265

0.971

-0.030

social_provision

1st

24

13.58 ± 3.15

24

13.75 ± 3.15

0.855

-0.114

social_provision

2nd

7

13.20 ± 2.40

0.260

5

15.12 ± 2.29

-0.935

0.171

-1.309

els_value_living

1st

24

16.67 ± 2.89

24

17.42 ± 2.89

0.374

-0.493

els_value_living

2nd

7

18.08 ± 2.34

-0.932

5

17.62 ± 2.26

-0.137

0.735

0.302

els_life_fulfill

1st

24

12.21 ± 3.09

24

13.88 ± 3.09

0.068

-1.144

els_life_fulfill

2nd

7

13.69 ± 2.37

-1.014

5

14.21 ± 2.27

-0.233

0.699

-0.363

els

1st

24

28.87 ± 5.38

24

31.29 ± 5.38

0.126

-0.892

els

2nd

7

31.81 ± 4.26

-1.082

5

31.86 ± 4.11

-0.211

0.981

-0.021

social_connect

1st

24

26.96 ± 9.73

24

27.17 ± 9.73

0.941

-0.064

social_connect

2nd

7

28.58 ± 6.48

-0.503

5

30.33 ± 5.99

-0.977

0.633

-0.539

shs_agency

1st

24

13.46 ± 4.75

24

14.63 ± 4.75

0.399

-0.561

shs_agency

2nd

7

15.00 ± 3.52

-0.742

5

15.11 ± 3.34

-0.231

0.959

-0.050

shs_pathway

1st

24

15.96 ± 3.67

24

17.04 ± 3.67

0.312

-0.568

shs_pathway

2nd

7

16.96 ± 2.95

-0.528

5

17.98 ± 2.85

-0.490

0.555

-0.531

shs

1st

24

29.42 ± 7.82

24

31.67 ± 7.82

0.324

-0.629

shs

2nd

7

31.92 ± 5.91

-0.699

5

33.09 ± 5.64

-0.397

0.731

-0.326

esteem

1st

24

12.58 ± 1.25

24

12.42 ± 1.25

0.646

0.161

esteem

2nd

7

13.53 ± 1.27

-0.916

5

12.39 ± 1.27

0.022

0.135

1.099

mlq_search

1st

24

15.00 ± 3.37

24

15.17 ± 3.37

0.865

-0.062

mlq_search

2nd

7

15.83 ± 3.38

-0.309

5

13.75 ± 3.38

0.527

0.299

0.774

mlq_presence

1st

24

13.92 ± 3.84

24

13.33 ± 3.84

0.601

0.245

mlq_presence

2nd

7

15.07 ± 3.38

-0.484

5

13.10 ± 3.32

0.099

0.322

0.828

mlq

1st

24

28.92 ± 6.62

24

28.50 ± 6.62

0.828

0.089

mlq

2nd

7

30.95 ± 6.24

-0.436

5

26.86 ± 6.20

0.352

0.269

0.877

empower

1st

24

19.75 ± 4.24

24

20.00 ± 4.24

0.839

-0.158

empower

2nd

7

20.35 ± 2.94

-0.378

5

20.01 ± 2.75

-0.004

0.837

0.217

ismi_resistance

1st

24

14.92 ± 2.64

24

14.75 ± 2.64

0.828

0.096

ismi_resistance

2nd

7

14.81 ± 2.39

0.061

5

15.26 ± 2.36

-0.293

0.750

-0.258

ismi_discrimation

1st

24

11.96 ± 3.01

24

10.38 ± 3.01

0.074

1.023

ismi_discrimation

2nd

7

11.11 ± 2.40

0.547

5

9.83 ± 2.32

0.349

0.362

0.826

sss_affective

1st

24

10.04 ± 4.02

24

9.21 ± 4.02

0.476

0.657

sss_affective

2nd

7

9.72 ± 2.63

0.251

5

8.17 ± 2.42

0.820

0.296

1.225

sss_behavior

1st

24

9.96 ± 4.15

24

8.92 ± 4.15

0.389

0.569

sss_behavior

2nd

7

8.70 ± 3.09

0.687

5

8.38 ± 2.94

0.291

0.858

0.173

sss_cognitive

1st

24

7.79 ± 4.06

24

8.17 ± 4.06

0.751

-0.242

sss_cognitive

2nd

7

8.98 ± 2.84

-0.769

5

7.06 ± 2.66

0.717

0.237

1.244

sss

1st

24

27.79 ± 11.30

24

26.29 ± 11.30

0.648

0.419

sss

2nd

7

27.28 ± 7.41

0.141

5

23.80 ± 6.81

0.696

0.404

0.973

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(54.22) = 0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.88)

2st

t(42.39) = -0.51, p = 0.612, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.11)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(47.95) = -0.21, p = 0.831, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.39)

2st

t(35.95) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.77)

ras_confidence

1st

t(46.85) = 0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.52)

2st

t(49.19) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-2.32 to 4.16)

ras_willingness

1st

t(49.06) = -0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.05)

2st

t(31.75) = 0.45, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.25)

ras_goal

1st

t(48.02) = 0.20, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.88)

2st

t(35.50) = -0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-3.26 to 1.75)

ras_reliance

1st

t(46.67) = 0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.96)

2st

t(52.51) = 0.73, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.81)

ras_domination

1st

t(52.96) = -2.16, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-2.73 to -0.10)

2st

t(36.70) = 0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.75)

symptom

1st

t(47.20) = 0.75, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-3.67 to 8.00)

2st

t(43.51) = 1.09, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -1.22, 95% CI (-3.48 to 11.70)

slof_work

1st

t(46.51) = -0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.98)

2st

t(55.04) = 0.01, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-3.23 to 3.25)

slof_relationship

1st

t(47.19) = -0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-4.08 to 2.83)

2st

t(43.62) = 0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-3.25 to 5.74)

satisfaction

1st

t(47.89) = 1.30, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-1.35 to 6.27)

2st

t(36.34) = 0.85, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-3.19 to 7.76)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(49.95) = 0.61, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.67)

2st

t(31.07) = -0.49, p = 0.629, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-4.39 to 2.70)

mhc_social

1st

t(50.30) = -0.48, p = 0.631, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.86 to 2.36)

2st

t(31.18) = -1.69, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 1.41, 95% CI (-10.11 to 0.94)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(50.26) = 0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-2.65 to 4.57)

2st

t(31.16) = -0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-8.60 to 4.18)

resilisnce

1st

t(50.57) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.15 to 3.15)

2st

t(31.37) = 0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-4.70 to 4.87)

social_provision

1st

t(48.38) = 0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.00)

2st

t(33.69) = 1.40, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -1.31, 95% CI (-0.87 to 4.70)

els_value_living

1st

t(49.13) = 0.90, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.43)

2st

t(31.64) = -0.34, p = 0.735, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.28)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(48.46) = 1.87, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.46)

2st

t(33.37) = 0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.22 to 3.28)

els

1st

t(48.84) = 1.56, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.71 to 5.54)

2st

t(32.20) = 0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-4.91 to 5.03)

social_connect

1st

t(47.17) = 0.07, p = 0.941, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-5.44 to 5.86)

2st

t(43.99) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-5.57 to 9.06)

shs_agency

1st

t(48.10) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.92)

2st

t(35.05) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-3.96 to 4.17)

shs_pathway

1st

t(49.04) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.21)

2st

t(31.79) = 0.60, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.44 to 4.47)

shs

1st

t(48.31) = 1.00, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-2.29 to 6.79)

2st

t(33.99) = 0.35, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-5.68 to 8.01)

esteem

1st

t(54.20) = -0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.56)

2st

t(42.27) = -1.52, p = 0.135, Cohen d = 1.10, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.37)

mlq_search

1st

t(53.68) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.12)

2st

t(39.66) = -1.05, p = 0.299, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-6.08 to 1.92)

mlq_presence

1st

t(50.51) = -0.53, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.81 to 1.64)

2st

t(31.32) = -1.01, p = 0.322, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-5.97 to 2.02)

mlq

1st

t(51.95) = -0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.25 to 3.42)

2st

t(33.69) = -1.12, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-11.49 to 3.31)

empower

1st

t(47.48) = 0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.21 to 2.71)

2st

t(39.94) = -0.21, p = 0.837, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.69 to 3.01)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(51.09) = -0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.70 to 1.36)

2st

t(32.00) = 0.32, p = 0.750, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.39 to 3.28)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(48.99) = -1.82, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-3.33 to 0.16)

2st

t(31.90) = -0.93, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-4.09 to 1.53)

sss_affective

1st

t(47.05) = -0.72, p = 0.476, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.50)

2st

t(45.88) = -1.06, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-4.51 to 1.40)

sss_behavior

1st

t(48.13) = -0.87, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.37)

2st

t(34.87) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.88 to 3.25)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(47.56) = 0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.73)

2st

t(39.17) = -1.20, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-5.17 to 1.32)

sss

1st

t(47.06) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-8.06 to 5.06)

2st

t(45.72) = -0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-11.82 to 4.85)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(24.06) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.45)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(11.75) = 0.78, p = 0.904, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.09)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(10.71) = 0.80, p = 0.882, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.46)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(12.97) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.41)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(11.82) = -1.00, p = 0.671, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.51 to 0.93)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(10.55) = 1.38, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.73)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(19.86) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.65 to 2.56)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(11.02) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-3.83 to 5.47)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(10.41) = -1.37, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.58)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(11.02) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.17)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(11.69) = 1.54, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.09 to 6.34)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(14.11) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.05 to 2.31)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(14.62) = -0.73, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-5.65 to 2.79)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(14.56) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-6.18 to 3.57)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(15.02) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.92 to 4.43)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(12.19) = 1.51, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.60 to 3.33)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(13.05) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(12.28) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.29)

els

1st vs 2st

t(12.71) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.04 to 4.18)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(10.99) = 1.56, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.29 to 7.61)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(11.90) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.29)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(12.95) = 0.80, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.46)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(12.12) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-3.39 to 6.23)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(23.97) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.20)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(22.03) = -0.91, p = 0.744, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-4.64 to 1.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(14.93) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.30 to 2.83)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(17.50) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-7.47 to 4.19)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(11.29) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.16 to 2.17)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(15.87) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.71)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(12.88) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.59 to 1.51)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(10.88) = -1.31, p = 0.434, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-2.79 to 0.71)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(11.93) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.94)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(11.36) = -1.15, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-3.23 to 1.00)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(10.89) = -1.11, p = 0.581, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-7.43 to 2.45)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(21.58) = 1.59, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.82)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(11.54) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.18)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(10.63) = 0.88, p = 0.800, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.14)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(12.60) = -0.81, p = 0.868, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.72)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(11.60) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.59)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(10.49) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.03)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(18.26) = -1.24, p = 0.458, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.73)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(10.91) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-5.07 to 2.82)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(10.37) = -3.15, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.68, 95% CI (-3.12 to -0.54)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(10.90) = -1.37, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.88)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(11.49) = 1.94, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-0.36 to 5.95)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(13.56) = 1.04, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.18 to 3.39)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(13.99) = 1.43, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.19 to 6.00)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(13.94) = 0.96, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.29 to 6.02)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(14.33) = 0.80, p = 0.874, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.96 to 4.31)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(11.93) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.05 to 1.29)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(12.66) = 1.79, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.13)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(12.00) = 1.94, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.18 to 3.14)

els

1st vs 2st

t(12.38) = 2.08, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -1.08, 95% CI (-0.14 to 6.00)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(10.88) = 0.95, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.15 to 5.40)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(11.67) = 1.41, p = 0.367, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.93)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(12.58) = 1.01, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.14 to 3.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(11.86) = 1.34, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-1.58 to 6.59)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(21.51) = 1.87, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.00)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(19.99) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.60)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(14.25) = 0.94, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.46 to 3.77)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(16.36) = 0.86, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.95 to 7.02)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(11.14) = 0.72, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.43)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(15.03) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.99 to 1.77)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(12.52) = -1.05, p = 0.627, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.90)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(10.78) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.16)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(11.70) = -1.31, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.36 to 0.84)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(11.20) = 1.46, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.99)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(10.79) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-4.69 to 3.68)

Plot

Clinical significance